4 ms·

Stopped reading at: "I think that as a community we need to increase our collaboration and diligently eliminate bugs and bad designs without slowing down innova

Stopped reading at: "I think that as a community we need to increase our collaboration and diligently eliminate bugs and bad designs without slowing down innovation and research."

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Why? It's true. Most tend to go to one extreme of the quality spectrum or another. A small number of companies and people find middle grounds that knock out serious problems while maintaining time to market. Then, can keep fixing stuff in reasonable time before it becomes a big problem due to design & policies being made to do that. These groups trying to go all in on unproven stuff really should dial down the innovation a little bit for caution and peer review in its place. Smaller-scale experiments before the big ones (eg DAO), too.
- zallarak 10y ago
  A middle ground wasn't advocated, he was basically saying "let's keep the pace of innovation constant, but improve quality". Putting incremental effort into quality and testing probably requires you slow down your rate of experimentation, no?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Well, sure. How much depends on what you're working with. Adding a single design or code review step in an otherwise feature-driven company is shown to knock out all kinds of issues. DAO came down pretty quickly. That much time for review with some bug bounties might have prevented some issues it had. They could still be developing on it in the process. Just not putting money in for real until it passed what peer review they could get. Of course, it's an example where there's all kinds of potential for problems that could take a serious amount of time to work out. Can't keep innovation pace high with something like that plus ensure quality. So, the trick is usually to leverage as much proven stuff in one's innovation as possible. Easy to do with software at least.
    - zallarak 10y ago
      Great point! What you're saying is that we can get some benefits for 0 effort if we employ the right software tools. Totally agreed.

Stopped reading at: "I think that as a community we need to increase our collaboration and diligently eliminate bugs and bad designs without slowing down innovation and research."

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Why? It's true. Most tend to go to one extreme of the quality spectrum or another. A small number of companies and people find middle grounds that knock out serious problems while maintaining time to market. Then, can keep fixing stuff in reasonable time before it becomes a big problem due to design & policies being made to do that. These groups trying to go all in on unproven stuff really should dial down the innovation a little bit for caution and peer review in its place. Smaller-scale experiments before the big ones (eg DAO), too.

zallarak 10y ago
A middle ground wasn't advocated, he was basically saying "let's keep the pace of innovation constant, but improve quality". Putting incremental effort into quality and testing probably requires you slow down your rate of experimentation, no?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Well, sure. How much depends on what you're working with. Adding a single design or code review step in an otherwise feature-driven company is shown to knock out all kinds of issues. DAO came down pretty quickly. That much time for review with some bug bounties might have prevented some issues it had. They could still be developing on it in the process. Just not putting money in for real until it passed what peer review they could get. Of course, it's an example where there's all kinds of potential for problems that could take a serious amount of time to work out. Can't keep innovation pace high with something like that plus ensure quality. So, the trick is usually to leverage as much proven stuff in one's innovation as possible. Easy to do with software at least.
  - zallarak 10y ago
    Great point! What you're saying is that we can get some benefits for 0 effort if we employ the right software tools. Totally agreed.